Memeorandum

July 03, 2012

Ending ObamaTax As We Know It

Keith Hennesey explains that much of the repeal of ObamaTax can be achieved through reconciliation, which only requires 51 Senate votes.

Avik Roy of NR works thorugh the electoral mathto see if those 51 votes will be there. It may not be easy. However, the Iowa Electronic Market estimates roughly a 60 chance of a Republican controlled House and Senate.

Comments

Another fact nobody ever seems to mention is that vast tracts of Obamacare consist only of blank pages labeled "to be filled in by the Secretary of HHS". Replacing Sebelius with a Romney appointee may make a bigger difference than all the votes put together.

When you graft control of health care as the physical wellbeing component the UN agencies want First World countries to be pushing and join it with the other 2 components of to be prescribed and monitored wellbeing, social and emotional, there is no zone of individual privacy or autonomy anymore. Except to have an abortion I suppose.

The 2012 UN publication of a World Happiness Report was to globalize this new cooperative degrowth Green Economy that is state directed. All aspects of their citizens life are to be intruded upon because that's the source of money, power, and control.

Like education, Obamacare is just trying to get the US caught up with the statist nightmare of much of the rest of the West. He really does love the direction of the UN. Probably recognizes the Chicago Way there.

JimR-- very astute question. Hopefully, repeal happens by reconciliation and we never address this issue, but expect States that don't have waivers to sue HHS and IRS for waiving taxes. oi vey-- what a mess if O-Care isn't repealed.

Before long, the conversation turned to judicial disappointments. “It’s sobering to think of the seventeen chief justices; certainly a solid majority of them have to be characterized as failures,” Roberts said with a rueful smile. “The successful ones are hard to number.” I asked him to elaborate: Why had so many chief justices been failures? Partly, Roberts explained, it was because the powers of the office are not extensive. “A chief justice’s authority is really quite limited, and the dynamic among all the justices is going to affect whether he can accomplish much or not,” he said. “There is this convention of referring to the Taney Court, the Marshall Court, the Fuller Court, but a chief justice has the same vote that everyone else has.” As a result, “the chief’s ability to get the Court to do something is really quite restrained.”

Some of the least successful chief justices, Roberts suggested, had faltered because they misunderstood the job, approaching it as law professors rather than as leaders of a collegial Court. [...]

In Roberts’s view, the most successful chief justices help their colleagues speak with one voice. Unanimous, or nearly unanimous, decisions are hard to overturn and contribute to the stability of the law and the continuity of the Court; by contrast, closely divided, 5–4 decisions make it harder for the public to respect the Court as an impartial institution that transcends partisan politics.

Roberts suggested that the temperament of a chief justice can be as important as judicial philosophy in determining his success or failure. And based on the impression he made in his first year on the Court and throughout his career, Roberts seems to have many of the personal gifts and talents of the most successful and politically savvy chief justices, such as Rehnquist and John Marshall [...]

Rich Lowry notwithstanding the law can be repealed in the reconciliation process. Obama can veto it, but he'd better be sure he can find enough sacrificial democratic senators to stick with him.I don't think the waivers can pass constitutional scrutiny.

I think people are less in awe of SCOTUS pronouncements than Walsh does.

(It's a lovely day here..the cherries tasted like wine; the cheese and bread and local vegetables and bread is wonderful ; the cicadas are chirping nonstop and the scent of lavender and herbs fills the air. XOXO

MelR-- I urge you to fire up the NetFlix and get 2 political films asap. Kazan's Face in the Crowd which is an honest Lefty's 1957 fear of rightwing mass marketing, with Griffith as shrewd Arkansas bumpkin Dusty Rhodes. The second is Preston Sturges' take on Chicago/Illinois ward politics, The Great McGinty, starring Brian Dunleavy as the the Blago-like con man become Governor.

The waivers were not with respect to the "shared responsibility payment" (an Orwellian term if there ever was one), but with respect to other ObamaCare provisions. ObamaCare as a whole is not a tax, but there are several tax provisions in it. My recollection is that the waivers were related to non-tax provisions. So, I don't think the CJ's opinion will have any effect on waivers.

--Remember, Uncle Mitch told us yesterday that the odds were long on getting rid of Obamacare.--

Really? That's what he said?

I thought he said it would be hard. Which it will.

I thought he said he'd do everything in his power to get rid of it. I believe that.

I thought this meant he wasn't trying to soften up reality -- was talking to us like responsible adults who have our own role to play to make this happen.

I would have thought that admission of not being all-powerful, needing support of the people, not going for soundbites or "gotchas", but laying out the reality would have gotten a more positive hearing than seems to be the case. Guess not. Message to Mitch: "Please lie, or at least spin the truth to drop out the hard bits so people who are stupid enough to vote based on pretty promises will like us more."

Wish I could comment as genially as JMH, but that would take me at least a couple hours of rewrites.

Sue we get fired up not on the basis of whether the "shared responsibility payment" is a tax or penalty or tip to a lap dancer in a champagne room or whatever one wants to call it, but because we think Romney and a GOP Congress is the best bet to halt the Nanny State in its tracks and hopefully move it back (enactment of Ryan type entitlement proposals, repeal of ObamaCare, lowering marginal tax rates, tax simplification, etc.).

"to halt the Nanny State in its tracks and hopefully move it back forward (enactment of Ryan type entitlement proposals, repeal of ObamaCare, lowering marginal tax rates, tax simplification, etc.)"

There is no "back". The CJ burned all the boats to ashes on the beach. (IMO - the teredo worms had destroyed them before the match was struck.)

If you want to look to someone to light the path forward, look to Scott Walker or to Paul Ryan and his Roadmap. Then look to yourself because it's not up to them, it's up to you.

Boehner, McConnell and whatshisname will conform to the will of the majority and it's up to us to make sure that will is clearly expressed at the ballot box. McConnell is correct in saying it will be hard but hard isn't impossible and the elections of '10 suggest it may be less hard than it seems.

It may not, Sue. But I thought the question was what gets US fired up.

Also, I'm not sure there is much to be done about the low info voter. I think this election will be decided by the medium info persuadables in the battleground states. And the message that will get them to vote GOP is that the Dems can't be trusted with the economy for another four years.

My complaint about McConnell yesterday was based solely on the headline being regarded as the totality of his statements, which it obviously wasn't. I still wish more Repubs would adhere to the unflagging optimism of Reagan, who was always cheerful about our ability to accomplish even the most difficult tasks. I think that aspect of his personality gets overlooked a lot.

"And the message that will get them to vote GOP is that the Dems can't be trusted with the economy for another four years."

TC,

The message is "Vice President Biden and Ranking Member Waxman now refer to a Democrat Depression which began when Democrats took control of the House and Senate in 2007 and deepened after President Obama's inauguration in 2009. The voters corrected part of the problem in 2010 and it's up to you to finish the job in 2012".

I agree with you re LIVs, they're going to split along the lines of the President's approval ratings in October.

Incoming Senate President Don Gaetz, R-Niceville, said both chambers agreed to spend the months leading up to the election studying how to implement the act, the costs and the legal contours, so Florida wouldn't be caught flat-footed after the election.

For one thing, Florida has already asked permission to move most of its Medicaid patients into managed-care contracts, and is awaiting word on how the national law will impact that.

"We're trying to hold all of this to the light," Gaetz said. "It's not a matter of being on the fence or not, it's a matter of knowing the facts."

Not easy, no. But the simplicity of the job puts conservatives on notice, if you want O-Care repealed, get Romney and Repub Senators in your State elected. That's the deal, no fancy strategy needed if you want Obamacare gone.

So, Chubby, you DO like McConnell putting himself out there to say it won't be easy to undo Obamacare? Not what you wanted to hear, but it's true, and stating the truth is right, even if it's not what you or "popular will" find "inspiring"?

wow, did he actually use the phrase "freedom isn't free?" if so, what an obscene distortion of the original intent of that phrase:

((Freedom isn't free", "freedom is not free", or "freedom ain't free" is an idiom in the United States, thought up by Colonel Walter Hitchcock (USAF Retired) of New Mexico Military Institute, that expresses gratitude for the service of members of the military. It implicitly states that the freedoms enjoyed by many citizens in Western republics are only possible through the voluntary risks taken and sacrifices made by the military...."Freedom Is Not Free" is engraved into one wall at the Korean War Veterans Memorial, Washington, D.C.. ))

Firstly,it's not a tax.It is as the Republican Presidential candidate pointed out,a penalty.

Secondly,repealing a penalty on one per cent of the nation's biggest,laziest,irresponsible,unamerican 'freeloaders' will not be a popular move.

But none of this matters.McConnel signaled that they're giving up this fight because it's just too hard to repeal something once it's been calcified into law and upheld by the SC.

Truth be told,there was no messaging mix up.What happened yesterday was the Romney campaign telling the Republican base 'shut up you ignorant,backward,survivalist rednecks and allow us to win an election.'

They're sick and tired of your 'crazy' preventing them from moving to the centre.They've entertained your whack job daydreams about President Obama being a Kenyian born anti-gun rights socialist who planted guns in mexico to.....oh jesus I can't even say it in satire......it's so illogical and dumb.......

Anyway,the parties over crazy people because Mom and dad are back and you're going to be grounded for the next 5 months.Fast n furious and repealing healthcare are finished as topics,you wont hear about either after next week, save the Conservative sites.After the upcoming dismal June numbers Romney will focus on Obama's faltering economy because you win the WH by focusing on what effects Americans,not Republicans.

Hopefully. It's good to keep a heavy duty truck battery with cables and alligator clamps available if head pats and light snacks don't suffice. Just tell 'em it's in a tea chest in the closet behind the door with the last formal portrait of Senator Richard Lugar hanging on it.

It's becoming clear that Romney has decided to focus on the economy at the expense of everything else, even issues that could play to his political benefit. He's avoided criticizing the administration's handling of the botched Fast and Furious operation, even as it threatens to become a serious vulnerability for the president. He's been silent in responding to Obama's immigration executive order, not wanting to offend receptive Hispanics or appear like a flip-flopper. He appears more likely to tap a safe, bland running mate like Ohio Sen. Rob Portman or former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty who won't do him any harm but won't benefit him much either. If the economy continues to sputter, that safe strategy might be enough. If not, his options are limited.

"Secondly,repealing a penalty on one per cent of the nation's biggest,laziest,irresponsible,unamerican 'freeloaders' will not be a popular move.

Thanks to dublindave for perfectly capturing the Orwellian nature of the arguments of the supporters of ObamaCare. The purpose of the "shared responsibility payment" is to make the young pay for the health care of older folks. It's not a tax or penalty on freeloaders. The young under ObamaCare will be paying more into the system than they will be getting out of it. It's older people who will be freeloaders under ObamaCare.

I knew I could depend on you, dublindave, to regurgitate once again the drivel of the supporters of the Nanny State.

The election was never going to hinge on the fate of ObamaTax in the SC. Just like the last time an incumbent lost reelection--it's going to come down the economy. Or rather to how the voters feel about the economy. In the PR business, there's an expression: "Perception is everything." If it looks to the voters like the economy is improving slightly, or even just middling along, Obama wins. If it looks like the economy is bad, or at the least getting worse by the day, Romney wins, and the GOP will keep the House and take the Senate.

I have a very cynical attitude toward politicians. You can rarely count on them to do the right thing, but you can always count on them to do what it takes to keep their office once they've won it. Romney and the Repubs will find a way to repeal ObamaTax if they see repeal as serving their interests. So it'll be up to us to hold their feet to the fire and make sure they understand that if they want to get reelected, then repeal is in their best interests

John Roberts is no doubt a brainy man, and that seems to carry a lot of weight among the intelligentsia -- despite glaring lessons from history, showing very brainy men creating everything from absurdities to catastrophes. Few of the great tragedies of history were created by the village idiot, and many by the village genius.

One of the Chief Justice's admirers said that when others are playing checkers, he is playing chess. How much consolation that will be as a footnote to the story of the decline of individual freedom in America, and the wrecking of the best medical care in the world, is another story.

There are many speculations as to why Chief Justice Roberts did what he did, some attributing noble and far-sighted reasons, and others attributing petty and short-sighted reasons, including personal vanity. But all of that is ultimately irrelevant.

What he did was betray his oath to be faithful to the Constitution of the United States.

Ig-- I don't remember ever having seen McGinty, but I saw it this weekend during TCM Preston Sturges night. I loved it; McGinty and the Boss were just too true. My favorite moment was Ward Boss William Demerast's back and forth with the pious Repub spokesman in the gubernatorial election-- both men were spouting the same 'facts' but they were speaking to entirely different voters --perfect. Add in the corrup "Citi" banker in Central American hiding and nothing has changed in 70 years. Whatever happened to Sturges? booze? depression? Both?

((So, Chubby, you DO like McConnell putting himself out there to say it won't be easy to undo Obamacare? Not what you wanted to hear, but it's true, and stating the truth is right, even if it's not what you or "popular will" find "inspiring"?))

Alice, your attempted gotcha fails because my pre-stated view of ideal leadership was that leaders should articulate a rationale as to why they think a fight is *right*. And an inspiring rationale for winning a right cause can be as principled and honest as any negative statement relative to said cause. M. may have made an honest statement but that statement didn't in any way exemplify leadership, unless one believes that "it's going to be hard" is an encouraging and galvanizing rally, which I don't.

According to a newly released Newsweek/Daily Beast poll of likely voters, the Supreme Court’s Obamacare ruling makes Americans more likely to vote for Mitt Romney and less likely to vote for President Obama. By a margin of 21 points (32 to 11 percent), voters say that they are now more, rather than less, apt to vote for Romney. By a margin of 15 percentage points (29 to 14 percent), voters say that they are now less, rather than more, apt to vote for Obama.
Romney and Romneycare

Moreover, 59 percent of likely voters say that the Court’s ruling will be at least “somewhat important” in deciding their vote for president, while only 36 percent say that the ruling will not be at least “somewhat important” in deciding their vote.

Romney is right to focus on the economy. He needs for the electorate to perceive that the economy is bad, and then lay that perception right at Obama's feet. He's going to be helped a lot by reality--it's been sucking pretty bad for four years now, and the suckage is about to get worse. If you're sick or injured, all you can think about is making the pain go away. Obama's had four years to make the pain go away and he's failed miserably. Romney's task will be to give the perception that he's got the medicine to make us all better again. In other words--hope and change.

Obama's and the Dems' big mistake was in thinking they could let the economy slide while they set about milking the tax payers and looting the coffers and expanding government, because in the past the economy always rebounded into a boom after a recession. So happy times would be here again, and they could take all the credit. They stupidly don't realize that the very things they've been doing have been what is preventing the economy from rebounding. It's too late for them now, and a lot of chickens are starting to come home to roost.